I think you expect a unreasonable amount of clarity from a 2000 year old book. From what we have, and considering the culture he lived in Jesus lifted women up.
It seems you missed the point. We know the text of the NT has been altered and selected by people with their own ideas and agenda. Jesus may well have taught more on equality for women and peoples sexual preference and it simply didn’t survive the prejudice of those that selected which teachings to pass on. Pure supposition on my part I know, but your suggestion that Jesus could have easily done it but didn’t is just goofy.
btw, Jesus did not teach that every lustful thought is sin but this type of misrepresentation does indicate your own bias.
Actually it isn’t. Unhindered by attachment to the canon title we have other books now we can study to explore the teachings of JC. The gospel of Thomas in particular. Please, this may be nitpicking, but you really have no basis to claim Jesus didn’t address the gay issue. It’s accurate to say we have no record of him addressing it specifically. I think there’s an important difference. I think it’s also fairly clear that he addressed issues of prejudice. Love thy neighbor may be very general but it does apply to all races, genders and sexual preference.
Also, the metaphor of the fig tree isn’t too hard to figure.
And it’s fairly obvious you don’t want to. That’s your prerogative. If we take the words attributed to JC from the gospels I think the main thrust of his message is pretty clear. Is every line or phrase crystal clear. No. Is every detail or scenario dealt with specifically? No. To suggest they should be, or it’s somehow a failing of Jesus that they aren’t strikes me as ludicrous.
Yeah, that thinking and having to figure things out is a horrible burden the human mind shouldn’t have to bear.
when asked, “who is my neighbor” Jesus tells a story that is fairly clear to any thinking person. When the listener grasps the concept Jesus instructs “Go and do likewise” Doing so in real life is harder than merely grasping the concept of a story. Even with instruction we have to do that for ourselves.
I’m not assuming my interpretation is 100% correct. I’m saying the general thrust of the teaching of JC is fairly clear. Let’s stay on subject. When it comes to a general concept of Jesus teaching about violence I don’t think most famous Christian thinkers and I would be that far off.
The teachings we have are on a page but the interpretation comes from the heart of the individual. If someone interprets love thy neighbor as “send them to the next life as soon as possible” is it the fault of the teacher?
I’ve expressed my own take on the subject and it’s obvious we’re not going to agree. I have no interest in going in circles.
I don’t even know what that means (“lifted women up”?). Jesus did a lot of strange things that he didn’t explain very well the reason for, whether this was just because he was a special case son of god, or what.
I don’t have any particular expectations on the Bible, but that’s because I don’t believe Jesus was more than some guy.
It’s odd that I’m here defending the idea that Jesus might have had some passing ability as the Son of God to be clear about his message and make sure it was transmitted accurately, and you are arguing against it.
But as I already pointed out, you don’t help yourself by arguing that Jesus words were altered and mangled and so forth. All that does is support my point that there is little reason to speak about any true Jesus and his teachings, let alone that there was some clear proscription against violence.
Of course, there is little reason regardless. Morality is something we should figure out based on the people and moral beings in the here and now, not based on trying to decipher the claims and sayings of some random person.
The Jesus of the bible says that one can commit adultery not with an act, but with a thought.
I don’t see why. If God really cared, God could have made the message clear. I don’t see how that is so hard. Of course, I’m not the one here defending the idea that Jesus had a specific teaching on anything. You are. Except you keep arguing all sides of that, saying that no he didn’t and then yes he did. It’s a little hard to follow.
First of all, its not clear that it did at all. You are just reading your own very modern understanding into those words. Certainly the OT proscription of which this was just a retread did not mean that, and in Jesus’ mouth its also not clear what actual CONDUCT that really meant. Plenty of people really DO think that persecuting gay people is consistent with loving them. And in fact, if gay people are condemning themselves to hell, condemning them is a very REAL and rational response, of love. What love was Jesus showing when he dismantled the temple shops or cursed fig trees or condemned those who would not follow him to eternal torment? If these are all consistent with love, then this love is consistent with anything.
It isn’t too hard to think up meanings for Nostradamus’ quatrains either. So?
Again, I don’t see how you can both credit Jesus with everything you like, and absolve him from everything you don’t. What sort of standard is that? Either Jesus was responsible for the content of his own teachings or he wasn’t. I’m right either way.
Really? The vast majority of them think gay people, for instance, are sick and sinful. The vast majority think waging war is acceptable. All I’m pointing out is that the fact that so many people have very very different interpretations than you should make you think twice about heralding the clarity of the teachings (while, paradoxically somehow asserting that they are confused and re-edited by others with their own agendas and so are not trustworthy). But instead you simply dismiss them all as fools that can’t read clear words.
Well, yes, very much so. Because the phrase is ephemeral and not descriptive.
You claim that you have: “studied and experienced”.
What is the extent of your “study and experience”?
Christianity, focusing primarily on the teaching of Jesus as outlined in the Gospels;
Buddhism, including its encounter with Islamic forces;
Judaism. Not just the Pentateuch but all of the other important books that form Judaic teachings;
Islam. Not just the Koran but the Hadiths that form the basis of Islamic law and incude detailed accounts of the life of Muhammad and his deeds;
Zoroastrianism, including its encounter with Islamic forces.
Hinduism, including its encounter with Islamic forces.
If you have only carried out only a superficial study of one or two of the above listed religions, then it does not entitle you to make a grandiose (and untrue) claim like:
What you think about Jesus has nothing to do with it. We’re not talking about the writings of Jesus. We’re talking about people writing about Jesus decades later. We’re talking about writings that passed through a lot of hands until centuries later a select few were chosen by men with their own agenda to be put together in a collection. We have literally thousands of copies of these texts and no two are exactly alike. Considering those details, people still find inspiration in the teachings we have. To consider those details and then say Jesus could have and should have been clearer about his teachings is completely unreasonable.
Bible literalists might agree with you and I would disagree with them. What you’re asking is for JC or his Dad to interfere with men’s free will in order to protect the accuracy of his message. If that were the plan there would be no need for free will at all. Just turn us all into stepford people. Well behaved. Nice to each other.
I’m not interested in a debate about free will. Since we seem to have it , I’d say we choose to accept or reject whatever teachings come along from whatever teacher. That means the men who followed Jesus and chose to write about him were free to interpret and alter for their own reasons.
I’d be one to agree that we don’t really know that much about Jesus and he is more of an iconic figure than anything else. Still, some of his teachings have survived for 2000 years and continue to move people.
The original point was , considering what we do have that is attributed to JC , what can we say about his teachings on violence. I repeat, if we look at his words alone in the gospels, it’s hard for any reasonable person to say he supported violence or IMO was even unclear about violence. Judging which verses clearly spoke against violence compared to a couple of verses that, when pulled out of context, might be supporting violence, there’s no real comparison, and very little doubt.
The issue of how clear you think Jesus should have or could have been on other issues is unrelated.
Thats right.
No reason to study history to try to get perspective on current issues. That would be stupid.
Once again you generalize too much.
I agree that giving words in an old book* too much* weight as the source of morality at best, unwise. We must weigh any philosophy with our own intelligence, and our own experience. We must take full responsibility for our moral choices. But really, people do find the words of great teachers and philosophers inspirational and worthy of consideration. Plato or Nietzsche may work for you. Jesus or Buddha for someone else. I’m not claiming Jesus is the only worthy guide. Personally the words of Buddha, Gandhi, and Baha’ullah have helped me to better understand what JC was talking about.
Yes he does. That is a very different statement form the one you previously made.
I already talked about the free will issue. If I really love my kids then maybe I shouldn’t allow them to actually think and choose for themselves. Wouldn’t their lives be safer and easier if I did that for them?
I’m sorry you can’t quite grasp what I’m saying. I’ve tried to simplify.
In general I think the basic tenants of what Jesus taught about how we should deal with each other is pretty clear to any reasonable person, regardless of whether you consider it a secular moral philosophy or a divine teaching.
I’d agree that there are lots of specific details that aren’t in there. Especially when considering the differences between the culture he dealt with ours.
I disagree. It is an interesting point and perhaps worthy of it’s own thread. A discussion of how clear or vague the words of Jesus are. I submit that as general principles they are pretty clear. To support it I’d have to do a lot more study and quoting than I’m willing to do here.
Another separate issue that I’m not getting into here. I’d agree that we have no record of Jesus dealing specifically with the issue of prejudice against homosexuals. To suggest that’s somehow a failing of Jesus makes no sense to me.
this is also off topic and requires too much detailed examination to deal with here. Love is not the only factor. There is also justice, and consequences for choices made.
Evidently you forgot why you brought it up. NP. We’ll drop it.
That’s not what I’m trying to do. I’m trying to take a realistic honest look at the words we have attributed to Jesus, tempered with and understanding about how we got them. I’m also trying to stay on subject. I don’t see that as an unreasonable standard. OTOH you keep inserting ludicrous unrealistic expectations about what Jesus and God could have or should have done. Sorry, that doesn’t make you right.
It’s so simple but you refuse to acknowledge it. Jesus is not directly responsible for the content of the Bible so it’s ridiculous for you to keep insisting he is.
you may conclude that means none of his teachings are worthy of consideration. Your choice. Thats not the subject at hand is it?
On the topic of violence {remember the OP} there are quite a few clear verses where Jesus speaks against it. Shall I list a few? OTOH we have very few verses that even suggest the possibility of a support of violence. So weighing the two sides I submit it is pretty dam clear that Jesus advocated non violence rather than violence. If you actually care to refute that specific issue please offer something more than “no it isn’t” and stay on topic.
Please stay on topic, which is not the issue of gay prejudice or morality. I’m suggesting that when asked whether Jesus advocated violence most great Christian thinkers would be much more likely to agree with me that he pretty clearly did not advocate violence.
The issue of why religious leaders have supported violence is yet another separate issue. Kind of like “why do so many Christians quote the sermon on the mount and then fail to live up to it’s principles” It’s interesting but it’s not what we’re talking about.
I mentioned a little history about the source of the Bible only because of your ridiculous claims about what Jesus could have or should have done. Even that is off topic.
If your argument is that Jesus teachings aren’t specific enough I’d say that’s a valid point. Obviously there is wide and varied interpretation. However, concerning only the subject of violence I don’t think there’s much question.
Then we disagree. The teacher shares his insight and what he believes to be of value. It is the responsibility of the student to internalize it and apply it.
Morality is about much more than a list of do’s and don’ts. It’s about an examination of our own inner motives and intent. A teacher can encourage that examination and IMHO that is contained within the words of Jesus. Yes even the version that has survived the centuries. The examination itself, and any desired changes, can *only * be done by the individual. That is the essence of our personal responsibility.
We might discuss the effectiveness of any given teacher. Apparently you’re eager to point out the failings of Christianity and blame those on Christ. That strikes me as similar to blaming Thomas Jefferson for the actions of GWB.
I’d like to see such a display.